IARPA Withdraws Funding From Major NIST Quantum Computing Groups

David Wineland runs a world class lab at NIST Boulder which has been at the forefront of ion trap quantum computing. William Phillips is a Nobel prizing winning physicist who also does quantum computing at NIST, this time at NIST Gaithersburg. To say that these are two top researchers in quantum computing, is a massive understatement. Both of the groups have produced their ground breaking work with the support of numerous alphabet soup government agencies throughout the years. Now comes word, via a Nature news article that IARPA, the intelligence community’s version of DARPA, has decided to stop funding these group’s research in quantum computing. Ostensibly the reason for this is that IARPA does not want to fund other agencies work. As a bureaucratic bullet point that sounds fine, but as a practical matter, it is, I must say, stark raving crazy. Or, as Ivan Deutsch put it in the Nature news article:

“Anyone who hears about this is shocked beyond belief,” says Ivan Deutsch of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. “The world leader in quantum computing having funding being terminated based on a technicality seems incredibly shortsighted.”

A letter has been sent to John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, protesting this move.
As a research pseudo professor I depend on research funding to keep me afloat (ah, the luxury of those professor’s who actually know they will get paid in a year’s time.) Things like this scare me, not because I think I’ll run across this particular variation on crazy funding decisions, but because it reminds me that directions for researching funding come down from way up in the great clogs of the government. And if David Wineland and Bill Phillips are subject to these whims, well, then, I fear that I, a minor theorist, am completely totally doomed. In the mean time, I guess all I can do is put my two cents in that this funding move is a really really bad idea.

Nobacon

A former student sent me what appears to be my doppelganger: Danbert Nobacon. Life with no bacon, well that’s just crazy.
In other Bacon related news: Jorge sends me Bacon Vodka…from Seattle. This will surely save me time because frying up bacon to mix in my wodka for my bacon vodka martini was always a real time sink.

Campus Ad

In the University of Washington’s “The Daily” in the lost and found section:

FOUND – PANDA head, appears to be a part of a missing suit. Recovered near 45th and Memorial. presumably stolen by ill-advised sorority girls during their week-long, drunken stupor

My Most Used iPhone Apps

The iPhone is a great gadget (as a phone, it’s okay. Personally I wish it could be made a bit louder as my ears, they ain’t so good at that hearing thing.) Here are the apps I’ve found that I use the most. (Excluding google maps, the built in email and browser, and the phone functions, of course. Having google maps available so easily really is an amazing piece of functionality to have in a phone, I must say.)
Continue reading “My Most Used iPhone Apps”

Film Reviews in Nature Physics?

What in the world is a review for Star Trek doing in Nature Physics? (Thank to reader W for pointing this out.) I mean, at least the review of Angels and Demons has references to physics, but the review of Star Trek, is, well, just a review of Star Trek with no reference physics or science or, well, anything that I could see the audience of Nature Physics relating to.
I’m not saying I don’t appreciate the review, or the book/art section of Nature Physics, but doesn’t this seem a bit out of place. It is too bad, indeed, because the movie does contain time travel, and as Cosmic Sean demonstrated their is ample fodder for a review of Star Trek that at least pulls in some fun physics.
In a related note, Nature physics now requires a statement of author’s contributions. (“Dave Bacon’s contribution was to sit around and crack jokes all day while we worked hard and tried not to get distracted.”)

Bing Zings Pontiff

So bing, Microsoft’s latest search engine, is up and running the tech word is a twitter. I checked it out and…well. On google when you search for “pontiff” my blog comes up as hit number five, after a few silly things like wikipedia entries and dictionary definitions (but no actual links to the *ahem* real pontiff. Sadly the days when I was number one on google are gone. But I will someday tell my grandkids…) But on bing, what happens? I’m down at number nine. Nine, Microsoft, really? I live in Seattle you know: shouldn’t this give me extra rank in your algorithms? And among the related searches, none of these are for “quantum pontiff.”
(I’d like to conclude that this is a good thing for how the search engine works except for the fact that bing gives the number three spot to a real estate agent. And we all know that real estate agents are actually all devils responsible for the collapse of the financial system and probably also for things like Mondays and gum stuck on the bottom of your shoes.)

Google Wave

Catch the wave. Long but worth watching:I suspect that collaboration will never be the same after the wave.
Another observation is about gadgets and iphone apps. One beauty of iphone apps is how easy it is to write one. This has always been true of many gadgets (like gadgets for google’s homepage.) But the later has always suffered, it seems to, in a lack of functionality. I think wave might push this problem in a very positive direction (see for example the yes/no/maybe widget.) Further having things server side is also allows for a sort of gadgetology with a large amount of power, which I really like.